Multicore Gaming

[earthintelboy]

I dont know if there was already a topic about this, but i have noticed that B4 was using all of the 8 cores of my fx 8350, and gpu utilization was at 99% all the time. (it wasnt that difficult ,its a hd 6850).

- Am i wrong?

- Is this the first game that is able to take advantage of more than 4 cores?

- have you seen this in any other recent game?

- Anyone who owns an intel processor with hyperthreading and/ or more than 6 physical cores have seen this?

- This would mean that cheap(or not) cpus with more than 4 cores would perform better than the fastest 4 cores cpus? (faster: speed core vs core against others)

 

Hope you guys can help me out with this questions! Thanks!

[cjeffcoatjr]

Yes. The FX-6300 is doing better a BF4 then the 4670K. AC4 is also taking more cores. More and more next-gen games will also. 

[TheSLSAMG]

1. About what?

2. No, but it's one of the most prominent.

3. I haven't personally, but I am the worst person to ask.

4. Yes.

5. Not necessarily.

[TheMissxu]

Planetside 2 has optimized its game engine to utilize more cores.

[MeltyMoon]

Next gen games will be written with a much larger emphases on multithreading this will benefit for us AMD users that went with the 'MOAR CORES' idea

 

Also,

Welcome to the forums!

[earthintelboy]

Yes. The FX-6300 is doing better a BF4 then the 4670K. AC4 is also taking more cores. More and more next-gen games will also. 

Well thats great! And they only cost over 100.

 

1. About what?

2. No, but it's one of the most prominent.

3. I haven't personally, but I am the worst person to ask.

4. Yes.

5. Not necessarily.

1- About me noticing the cpu utilization of B4.

 And thanks!

[Imabigmac]

Yes. The FX-6300 is doing better a BF4 then the 4670K. AC4 is also taking more cores. More and more next-gen games will also. 

I disagree with that. 

 

But yea BF4 does use way more core powa! 

[brob]

Yes. The FX-6300 is doing better a BF4 then the 4670K. AC4 is also taking more cores. More and more next-gen games will also. 

 

Can you provide a link to that data please. The only BF4 benchmarks I can find involve pre Haswell Intel cpu, and in all of those the FX-6300 is behind the i5-3470 (http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html) or i5-2500K (http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-beta-gpu-cpu-benchmarks/).

[TheMissxu]

Can you provide a link to that data please. The only BF4 benchmarks I can find involve pre Haswell Intel cpu, and in all of those the FX-6300 is behind the i5-3470 (http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html) or i5-2500K (http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-beta-gpu-cpu-benchmarks/).

The 6350 is with in 1% of the 3570k... That obviously means they are equal (with in margin or error).

 

Here is a more up to date version of your second link. It is clear that the 6300 falls 7 frames per second (or 7%) behind the 4670k, but the 8350's performance clearly shows how well multicores are handled.

 

Don't forget we are also comparing price to performance. The 4670k costs $100 more than the 6350!

 

Might I add that many games still are bottlenecking AMD CPUs, so it might make sense to grab an i5. AMD jumped the gun on Multicore way to soon (with paying little attention to single thread performance [which is why Bulldozer sucked so bad], that, compounded with the state of software [only utilizing single threads], made AMD CPUs look very poor. In reality, they pack quite the punch for the money now).

[brob]

The 6350 is with in 1% of the 3570k... That obviously means they are equal (with in margin or error).

 

Here is a more up to date version of your second link. It is clear that the 6300 falls 7 frames per second (or 7%) behind the 4670k, but the 8350's performance clearly shows how well multicores are handled.

 

Don't forget we are also comparing price to performance. The 4670k costs $100 more than the 6350!

 

Might I add that many games still are bottlenecking AMD CPUs, so it might make sense to grab an i5. AMD jumped the gun on Multicore way to soon (with paying little attention to single thread performance [which is why Bulldozer sucked so bad], that, compounded with the state of software [only utilizing single threads], made AMD CPUs look very poor. In reality, they pack quite the punch for the money now).

 

Thank you for the link.

 

It seems that the data does not support the original assertion "Yes. The FX-6300 is doing better a BF4 then the 4670K. AC4 is also taking more cores. More and more next-gen games will also.". I don't see any indication that price was a factor in that statement. (It certainly might be a consideration for some builds.)

 

I'm not arguing anything here. Just trying to establish fact.

[TheMissxu]

Thank you for the link.

 

It seems that the data does not support the original assertion "Yes. The FX-6300 is doing better a BF4 then the 4670K. AC4 is also taking more cores. More and more next-gen games will also.". I don't see any indication that price was a factor in that statement. (It certainly might be a consideration for some builds.)

 

I'm not arguing anything here. Just trying to establish fact.

You are very correct -- the original asserter did not qualify what "doing better" really meant, and the 4670K runs 7% faster than a 6300.

 

Also, I don't know where he got "AC4 is also taking more cores." Clearly, "Although the game [AC4] scales on four CPU cores, it does not take advantage of them and the performance differences between dualcores and quadcores are minimal."

 

I do however believe that more and more next-gen games will utilize more threads.

[brob]

I do however believe that more and more next-gen games will utilize more threads.

 

I expect you are correct. The only real question in my mind is how far in the future is this. If it's a matter of a year or two, it makes a difference to buying decisions today. Any further out and I'm not sure that it is germane.

[Ertman]

I think a year or two, given the low power CPUs in the consoles resulting in the need to use more cores effectively.